The illustrations were for the temperature change for over a century, and for ALL of the five forcings during that period. You take the information and claim it should be the same for a different period of time without any evidence of the forcings included being the same and try to say the original representation is wrong because it does not show what you claim it should in this new period.

If GHGs were the driver, regardless of the timescale, there would still have to be a Greenhouse warming signature, regardless of other minor factors that may have changed.

The fact that we don't observe this pattern of warming over the last 30 years, points to another factor besides GHGs that are changing the climate.

And the observed rate was far less than would be required for the climate impact, thus it does throw wrench into that hypothesis.

Not stated in the paper.

Quote:

It is inferred in the data, but the authors made the clear statement to the media.

This was the closest statement from Kirkby that I could find in the "media:"

“At the moment, it actually says nothing about a possible cosmic-ray effect on clouds and climate, but it’s a very important first step,” he says.

So where is Kirkby quoted as saying that GCRs do not have a significant impact on the nucleation rate?

Well, we have been discussing it in another thread already ....

Wayne Stollings wrote:

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v476/n7361/full/nature10343.html

.Atmospheric aerosols exert an important influence on climate1 through their effects on stratiform cloud albedo and lifetime2 and the invigoration of convective storms3. Model calculations suggest that almost half of the global cloud condensation nuclei in the atmospheric boundary layer may originate from the nucleation of aerosols from trace condensable vapours4, although the sensitivity of the number of cloud condensation nuclei to changes of nucleation rate may be small5, 6. Despite extensive research, fundamental questions remain about the nucleation rate of sulphuric acid particles and the mechanisms responsible, including the roles of galactic cosmic rays and other chemical species such as ammonia7. Here we present the first results from the CLOUD experiment at CERN. We find that atmospherically relevant ammonia mixing ratios of 100 parts per trillion by volume, or less, increase the nucleation rate of sulphuric acid particles more than 100–1,000-fold. Time-resolved molecular measurements reveal that nucleation proceeds by a base-stabilization mechanism involving the stepwise accretion of ammonia molecules. Ions increase the nucleation rate by an additional factor of between two and more than ten at ground-level galactic-cosmic-ray intensities, provided that the nucleation rate lies below the limiting ion-pair production rate. We find that ion-induced binary nucleation of H2SO4–H2O can occur in the mid-troposphere but is negligible in the boundary layer. However, even with the large enhancements in rate due to ammonia and ions, atmospheric concentrations of ammonia and sulphuric acid are insufficient to account for observed boundary-layer nucleation.

_________________With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none” Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."Albert Einstein

The illustrations were for the temperature change for over a century, and for ALL of the five forcings during that period. You take the information and claim it should be the same for a different period of time without any evidence of the forcings included being the same and try to say the original representation is wrong because it does not show what you claim it should in this new period.

If GHGs were the driver, regardless of the timescale, there would still have to be a Greenhouse warming signature, regardless of other minor factors that may have changed.

The signature would not be that shown in the model, which you claim is the basis for the determination, so you cannot tell us what the signature would be from the model for the time frame you choose to use. It is really very simple.

Quote:

The fact that we don't observe this pattern of warming over the last 30 years, points to another factor besides GHGs that are changing the climate.

That is your belief and not very well founded in factual evidence.

_________________With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none” Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."Albert Einstein

Anything that affects cloud formation can in theory affect climate, because clouds can either reflect or trap the sun's heat depending on conditions. Cloud droplets can form only on particles above 50 nanometres. In much of the atmosphere, dust, smoke and sea-spray provide more than enough of these cloud condensation nuclei, or CCNs.

High in the atmosphere, however, such particles are scarce. Here, cloud formation depends partly on trace gases condensing to form particles just 1 nanometre across, which can then grow large enough to act as CCNs.

Kirkby is part of the CLOUD experiment at CERN to investigate whether cosmic rays influence cloud formation. The team started by looking at the formation of the very small particles - a process called aerosol nucleation - by mimicking atmospheric conditions inside an ultraclean steel "cloud chamber", which Kirkby says is the cleanest ever created. Cleanliness is vital since contaminants can themselves become sites of aerosol nucleation.

Aerosol nucleation is known to require sulphuric acid, but Kirkby's team found that it is not enough by itself at low altitudes - the presence of an additional organic trace vapour is needed (Nature, DOI: 10.1038/nature10343). "If there is too little of either component then nucleation will not occur at an appreciable rate in the low atmosphere," says Kirkby. That means the organic component - and thus the role of living organisms - is more important than had been thought, although the full implications are not yet understood.

_________________With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none” Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."Albert Einstein

Snowy? Are there more probs at the enviro site? I log in and it says I'm logged in... and yet I can't post!What up?

I got a couple of emails this morning indicating the site will shut down within a couple of weeks or so. I checked and there was a noitice that Fabian could not afford to continue to run it as he wanted and to wrap up the discussions.

_________________With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none” Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."Albert Einstein

I sent Fabian a PM in case he wanted to post a link to here for anyone who wanted to continue their discussions on line. I do not know if he will post anything or not, but it was worth a shot. I still hate the thought of all of the information we lost here in the server crash and the automatic data pruning.

_________________With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none” Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."Albert Einstein